MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006563802 · doi:10.1890/100223

Does growing vegetables in plastic greenhouses enhance regional ecosystem services beyond the food supply?

2013· review· en· W2006563802 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Chang, Xu Wu, Wang Yan, Laura A. Meyerson, Baojing Gu, Yong Ki Min, Hui Xue, Changhui Peng, Ying Ge

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcosystem servicesAgricultureEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasGreenhouseEcosystemCarbon sequestrationNatural resource economicsBusinessAgricultural economicsAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionGeographyAgronomyEcologyEconomicsCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, plastic greenhouse vegetable cultivation (PGVC) has expanded worldwide, particularly in China, where it accounts for more than 90% of all global PGVC operations. As compared with conventional agricultural methods, PGVC has doubled crop yields by extending growing seasons and intensifying agriculture. PGVC also offers more ecosystem services relative to conventional approaches, including greater soil carbon sequestration, lower water consumption, and improved soil protection at regional scales. The economic benefits of this easily implemented agricultural method are attractive to small‐holder farmers. However, greater environmental impacts (eg greenhouse‐gas emissions, generation of large amounts of plastic waste) are associated with PGVC than with conventional approaches. Here, we review what is currently known about PGVC and identify future research priorities that will comprehensively assess the ecosystem services offered by this method of cultivation, as well as its environmental impacts and socioeconomic benefits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations166
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics SystemsFrench-language works237,207